Why are people obsessed with megapixels? Do they not understand that all it does is produce huge files that aren't any better quality when they're used at normal sizes than the 8 MP (or whatever) cameras that are more typical? Unless you plan to blow a picture up to wall size, going to this many megapixels is not only useless, but it's stupid.

Maybe things have changed since the last I checked, but isn't anything over say about 12-15 MP pretty much a waste? At 41 MP, would there even be a screen capable of showing a difference from something with a third of the MP? Let alone the fact that most people don't even move their photos off their cameras. I'm pretty sure that there isn't a consumer level printer that could print out a difference. Meanwhile, you end up with individual photos that are huge, and are a PITA to transfer off of.

A massive number of pixels packed into a 4mm^2 sensor? What's there to lose, aside from dynamic range, low-light performance, noise levels, time spent transferring the enormous files, battery life...

I'm not just trying to be snarky. We've reached the point where more pixels make for more problems than benefits. What's needed is physically larger sensors with physically larger pixels, all of which collect more light and make for better photos. Right now, there's a LOT of software trickery being used to squeeze usable images from ever smaller photo sites. If one were to apply the processing power and software used by Apple or Samsung on their phones to a much larger 1/2.3" sensor (as used by basic point and shoot cameras), we could get some REAL progress. At least, so long as they don't use the extra real estate to shove the pixel count above the current 8-13 million.

Why are people obsessed with megapixels? Do they not understand that all it does is produce huge files that aren't any better quality when they're used at normal sizes than the 8 MP (or whatever) cameras that are more typical? Unless you plan to blow a picture up to wall size, going to this many megapixels is not only useless, but it's stupid.

The way I understand this PureView sensor works is kinda different, IIRC, when they announced the Nokia 808 they said you won't take 41MP photos, you *can*, but it is kinda useless, as you said; instead you'll take 8MP photos with the extra megapixels available used for multisampling, (supposedly) making the image more clear and with more quality at the same MP ratio.

Why are people obsessed with megapixels? Do they not understand that all it does is produce huge files that aren't any better quality when they're used at normal sizes than the 8 MP (or whatever) cameras that are more typical? Unless you plan to blow a picture up to wall size, going to this many megapixels is not only useless, but it's stupid.

The way I understand this PureView sensor works is kinda different, IIRC, when they announced the Nokia 808 they said you won't take 41MP photos, you *can*, but it is kinda useless, as you said; instead you'll take 8MP photos with the extra megapixels available used for multisampling, (supposedly) making the image more clear and with more quality at the same MP ratio.

Why are people obsessed with megapixels? Do they not understand that all it does is produce huge files that aren't any better quality when they're used at normal sizes than the 8 MP (or whatever) cameras that are more typical? Unless you plan to blow a picture up to wall size, going to this many megapixels is not only useless, but it's stupid.

Because it's for marketing and product differentiation?

Similar to how LTE is not a huge advantage over HSPA+ on phones, yet somehow Ars and TheVerge knocked a significant amount of points and made a huge fuss over the fact that the Nexus 4 lacked LTE support. So instead of 100 Mbps (LTE), people are stuck to a crawl of 42 Mbps (HSPA+).

Why are people obsessed with megapixels? Do they not understand that all it does is produce huge files that aren't any better quality when they're used at normal sizes than the 8 MP (or whatever) cameras that are more typical? Unless you plan to blow a picture up to wall size, going to this many megapixels is not only useless, but it's stupid.

Maybe you should look up how the Pureview 808 worked. It used a high amount of megapixels to make up for a lack of a mechanical zoom.

Why are people obsessed with megapixels? Do they not understand that all it does is produce huge files that aren't any better quality when they're used at normal sizes than the 8 MP (or whatever) cameras that are more typical? Unless you plan to blow a picture up to wall size, going to this many megapixels is not only useless, but it's stupid.

The way I understand this PureView sensor works is kinda different, IIRC, when they announced the Nokia 808 they said you won't take 41MP photos, you *can*, but it is kinda useless, as you said; instead you'll take 8MP photos with the extra megapixels available used for multisampling, (supposedly) making the image more clear and with more quality at the same MP ratio.

But, have Nokia shown that oversampling does actually work that way? While you might suggest there might be some advantage from averaging, if the individual pixel errors are very correlated then that wouldn't work anywhere near so well. And you won't be able to fit a good lens on the phone anyway.

Similar to how LTE is not a huge advantage over HSPA+ on phones, yet somehow Ars and TheVerge knocked a significant amount of points and made a huge fuss over the fact that the Nexus 4 lacked LTE support. So instead of 100 Mbps (LTE), people are stuck to a crawl of 42 Mbps (HSPA+).

Just to reiterate your point, on 10MHz of spectrum (same as used by most carriers for LTE right now and all DC-HSPA+ networks), you're only going to get about 53Mbps out of current LTE hardware, tops. vs 42Mbps on DC-HSPA+. LTE isn't some magical trick that is massively more efficient than HSPA. The big numbers pimped out by the industry require 20-100MHz of spectrum, which really doesn't exist anywhere right now contiguously.

Why are people obsessed with megapixels? Do they not understand that all it does is produce huge files that aren't any better quality when they're used at normal sizes than the 8 MP (or whatever) cameras that are more typical? Unless you plan to blow a picture up to wall size, going to this many megapixels is not only useless, but it's stupid.

Maybe you should look up how the Pureview 808 worked. It used a high amount of megapixels to make up for a lack of a mechanical zoom.

This isn't MP dick-waving, this is actually useful.

The question you have to ask yourself is: if lots of small pixels averaged is actually a good idea, why don't the various DSLR manufacturers do it? If it helps in a tiny phone CCD, it'll help with a big DSLR CCD. Instead, the given megapixels of those cameras are all quite modest, and very modest relative to their large CCD sizes. Presuming the likes of Canon know more about this stuff than phone manufacturer Nokia, the significant difference between their products and this phone is that this phone will be pitched to people who don't understand how digital cameras work.

Why are people obsessed with megapixels? Do they not understand that all it does is produce huge files that aren't any better quality when they're used at normal sizes than the 8 MP (or whatever) cameras that are more typical? Unless you plan to blow a picture up to wall size, going to this many megapixels is not only useless, but it's stupid.

The way I understand this PureView sensor works is kinda different, IIRC, when they announced the Nokia 808 they said you won't take 41MP photos, you *can*, but it is kinda useless, as you said; instead you'll take 8MP photos with the extra megapixels available used for multisampling, (supposedly) making the image more clear and with more quality at the same MP ratio.

But, have Nokia shown that oversampling does actually work that way? While you might suggest there might be some advantage from averaging, if the individual pixel errors are very correlated then that wouldn't work anywhere near so well. And you won't be able to fit a good lens on the phone anyway.

Overall, this just stinks of desperation.

You need to read about the 808 camera to know that it works, hell, the link is even on the article and to me it seems that it works. The phone will be bulky and it's not there yet, but I can see it working with enough refinement

Why are people obsessed with megapixels? Do they not understand that all it does is produce huge files that aren't any better quality when they're used at normal sizes than the 8 MP (or whatever) cameras that are more typical? Unless you plan to blow a picture up to wall size, going to this many megapixels is not only useless, but it's stupid.

Maybe you should look up how the Pureview 808 worked. It used a high amount of megapixels to make up for a lack of a mechanical zoom.

This isn't MP dick-waving, this is actually useful.

The question you have to ask yourself is: if lots of small pixels averaged is actually a good idea, why don't the various DSLR manufacturers do it? If it helps in a tiny phone CCD, it'll help with a big DSLR CCD. Instead, the given megapixels of those cameras are all quite modest, and very modest relative to their large CCD sizes. Presuming the likes of Canon know more about this stuff than phone manufacturer Nokia, the significant difference between their products and this phone is that this phone will be pitched to people who don't understand how digital cameras work.

This all makes it sound a lot like a pointless PR gimmick to me.

A single large photosite will collect as much if not more light than multisampled smaller sites, and does so with less complex wiring and less computational resources. Basically, it works better and is cheaper.

Why are people obsessed with megapixels? Do they not understand that all it does is produce huge files that aren't any better quality when they're used at normal sizes than the 8 MP (or whatever) cameras that are more typical? Unless you plan to blow a picture up to wall size, going to this many megapixels is not only useless, but it's stupid.

Maybe you should look up how the Pureview 808 worked. It used a high amount of megapixels to make up for a lack of a mechanical zoom.

This isn't MP dick-waving, this is actually useful.

The question you have to ask yourself is: if lots of small pixels averaged is actually a good idea, why don't the various DSLR manufacturers do it? If it helps in a tiny phone CCD, it'll help with a big DSLR CCD. Instead, the given megapixels of those cameras are all quite modest, and very modest relative to their large CCD sizes. Presuming the likes of Canon know more about this stuff than phone manufacturer Nokia, the significant difference between their products and this phone is that this phone will be pitched to people who don't understand how digital cameras work.

This all makes it sound a lot like a pointless PR gimmick to me.

Because they don't have to, they have mechanical zoom and real lenses. Instead of continuing to spout off like an ignorant prick, why don't you actually do what everyone in this comment thread is telling you to do and look up the device you haven't heard of until 5 minutes ago and already proclamiing is all PR bullshit. Kay? Kay.

I don't see any comparison there between the Pureview and a standard camera CCD of the same size. That link proves nothing.

That's not what you asked for. You asked if oversampling works like that - it does as that's exactly what Nokia does. Have you been in a cave for the last ~10 months and just never heard of this phone?

Because they don't have to, they have mechanical zoom and real lenses. Instead of continuing to spout off like an ignorant prick, why don't you actually do what everyone in this comment thread is telling you to do and look up the device you haven't heard of until 5 minutes ago and already proclamiing it's all PR bullshit. Kay? Kay.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Lenses have nothing to do with sensor tech, which is why you can (with an adapter ring) slap a 120 year old lens on to a brand new mirrorless system cam and it will work.

Also, many of the best interchangeable lenses don't zoom either. They're fixed focal length, just like phone cams.

Why are people obsessed with megapixels? Do they not understand that all it does is produce huge files that aren't any better quality when they're used at normal sizes than the 8 MP (or whatever) cameras that are more typical? Unless you plan to blow a picture up to wall size, going to this many megapixels is not only useless, but it's stupid.

The way I understand this PureView sensor works is kinda different, IIRC, when they announced the Nokia 808 they said you won't take 41MP photos, you *can*, but it is kinda useless, as you said; instead you'll take 8MP photos with the extra megapixels available used for multisampling, (supposedly) making the image more clear and with more quality at the same MP ratio.

Because they don't have to, they have mechanical zoom and real lenses. Instead of continuing to spout off like an ignorant prick, why don't you actually do what everyone in this comment thread is telling you to do and look up the device you haven't heard of until 5 minutes ago and already proclamiing it's all PR bullshit. Kay? Kay.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Lenses have nothing to do with sensor tech, which is why you can (with an adapter ring) slap a 120 year old lens on to a brand new mirrorless system cam and it will work.

When did I ever say they did? Nokia is using a large sensor to make up for the lack of the professional lenses and mechanical zoom you get in DSLRs. That's why they have a 41MP sensor that oversamples to create a 5MP image. You can't fit DSLR parts into a camera, so this is the design that Nokia devised to make digital zoom actually useful.

I thought ars readers would read up what they're commenting on...I wonder how they're gonna get the stuff to conform with MS' specs for their phones. I've read that there's not really that much free room, but I guess it might be a benefit of their partnership.

When did I ever say they did? Nokia is using a large sensor to make up for the lack of the professional lenses and mechanical zoom you get in DSLRs. That's why they have a 41MP sensor that oversamples to create a 5MP image. You can't fit DSLR parts into a camera, so this is the design that Nokia devised to make digital zoom actually useful.

You're confused because you STILL don't know what you're talking about.

When did I ever say they did? Nokia is using a large sensor to make up for the lack of the professional lenses and mechanical zoom you get in DSLRs. That's why they have a 41MP sensor that oversamples to create a 5MP image. You can't fit DSLR parts into a camera, so this is the design that Nokia devised to make digital zoom actually useful.

You're confused because you STILL don't know what you're talking about.

Oh? Then enlighten me. Because that is the exact reason why Nokia developed the Pureview 808.

Why are people obsessed with megapixels? Do they not understand that all it does is produce huge files that aren't any better quality when they're used at normal sizes than the 8 MP (or whatever) cameras that are more typical? Unless you plan to blow a picture up to wall size, going to this many megapixels is not only useless, but it's stupid.

Maybe you should look up how the Pureview 808 worked. It used a high amount of megapixels to make up for a lack of a mechanical zoom.

This isn't MP dick-waving, this is actually useful.

Useful in a relative sense. PureView does more than improve the zoom and certainly has potential to improve smartphone photos, but we're still talking about images caputured through a 2mm fixed-focus lens that's either totally exposed or tucked behind a non-replaceable clear cover. If you're trying to take great photos with your phone then you might as well be poking yourself in the eye with a hot stick. Which essentially rolls us back to the position that it's primarily ePeen for marketing purposes as long as it's being used for phone cameras.

I don't see any comparison there between the Pureview and a standard camera CCD of the same size. That link proves nothing.

That's not what you asked for. You asked if oversampling works like that - it does as that's exactly what Nokia does. Have you been in a cave for the last ~10 months and just never heard of this phone?

You don't get the point. There's two features here:

1. There's a CCD that is 5 times the size of a standard CCD, and indeed larger than the CCD of a normal compact camera.

2. There's splitting that CCD into a bunch of tiny pixels and then later on adding them back together again.

It's quite understandable that (1) produces improvements in performance. The question is whether (2) adds any value whatsoever. By itself, it necessarily increases complexity, and leads to higher computational requirements. But does it offer some advantage for all that price. The question of 'does oversampling work' is whether, when compared to a camera of similar CCD size, Nokia's strategy of splitting up the pixels means anything whatsoever. Yes, it 'works' in the sense that photos are taken, but is it just a nonsense feature? That's what matters.

I have read the linked article. It was a marketing spiel. Show us the performance.

No. That only shows that averaging a few of the PureViews's noisy little pixels together works. And of course it does, since signal to noise ratio will increase with the square root of the number of photons counted, ie. the number of pixels averaged. However, a sensor of the same size, using fewer, larger pixels, would exhibit the exact same effect as its larger pixels would stop more photons. That second detector, with fewer pixels, would have less space wasted between the pixels and produce better images that require less readout electronics and processing. The noise reduction claims are 100% nonsense.

The zoom claims are likewise 100% nonsense. When you activate the PureViews's digital zoom, you throw out the data from the periphery of the detector. You are left with a still high resolution, but very noisy image from the centre detectors. If you were to then fix the noise by pixel averaging, you would be left with the exact same low res, low noise image as any other detector of the same area, if not worse for the same reasons as above.

I wish Ars would educate you guys about this. The previous article they did fell for Nokia's bunk hook, line and sinker. And yes, I have a masters degree in image processing, so don't mess with me on this one.

Why are people obsessed with megapixels? Do they not understand that all it does is produce huge files that aren't any better quality when they're used at normal sizes than the 8 MP (or whatever) cameras that are more typical? Unless you plan to blow a picture up to wall size, going to this many megapixels is not only useless, but it's stupid.

The way I understand this PureView sensor works is kinda different, IIRC, when they announced the Nokia 808 they said you won't take 41MP photos, you *can*, but it is kinda useless, as you said; instead you'll take 8MP photos with the extra megapixels available used for multisampling, (supposedly) making the image more clear and with more quality at the same MP ratio.

A single large photosite will collect as much if not more light than multisampled smaller sites, and does so with less complex wiring and less computational resources. Basically, it works better and is cheaper.

I'm not quite sure that's completely true--there's a good argument to be made that multi-sampling will reduce the noise floor since even though the SNR of the smaller sites is much worse than a bigger site, the noise between them is largely uncorrelated and will average out effectively. Still, there are diminishing returns to oversampling; the benefit of going from 1x to 4x oversampling is going to be similar as that of going from 4x to 16x, so you rapidly get to a point where it doesn't make sense to increase pixel density. Yes, you reduced the signal strength significantly, but by doing so, you were able to decrease noise even more. I work in acoustics, and we do this sort of stuff all the time--it's effective.

Still, your general point is correct--smartphones, even DSLRs really, are now at the point where they're more limited by optics than by CCDs. A 41MP smartphone camera isn't going to be much better than an 8MP one, no matter how much DSP trickery you apply. I suspect the improved image quality of the Nokia phones has much more to do with the enlarged camera enclosure than anything else. Drop a 41MP CCD into an iPhone, changing nothing but the CCD, and I think the resulting images will look pretty similar.

No. That only shows that averaging a few of the PureViews's noisy little pixels together works. And of course it does, since signal to noise ratio will increase with the square root of the number of photons counted, ie. the number of pixels averaged. However, a sensor of the same size, using fewer, larger pixels, would exhibit the exact same effect as its larger pixels would stop more photons. That second detector, with fewer pixels, would have less space wasted between the pixels and produce better images that require less readout electronics and processing. The noise reduction claims are 100% nonsense.

The zoom claims are likewise 100% nonsense. When you activate the PureViews's digital zoom, you throw out the data from the periphery of the detector. You are left with a still high resolution, but very noisy image from the centre detectors. If you were to then fix the noise by pixel averaging, you would be left with the exact same low res, low noise image as any other detector of the same area, if not worse for the same reasons as above.

I wish Ars would educate you guys about this. The previous article they did fell for Nokia's bunk hook, line and sinker. And yes, I have a masters degree in image processing, so don't mess with me on this one.

When did I ever say they did? Nokia is using a large sensor to make up for the lack of the professional lenses and mechanical zoom you get in DSLRs. That's why they have a 41MP sensor that oversamples to create a 5MP image. You can't fit DSLR parts into a camera, so this is the design that Nokia devised to make digital zoom actually useful.

You're confused because you STILL don't know what you're talking about.

Oh? Then enlighten me. Because that is the exact reason why Nokia developed the Pureview 808.

First, lenses are irrelevant. Stop mentioning them. Most phones cams have f/2.8 or faster lenses. The That is as fast as many DSLR pro lenses. HTC One X has a f/2.0, I believe, and that's damn fast. Also, many DSLR/ILC lenses are fixed-focal length primes, which means they don't have zoom either. In fact, every time you repeat the world "zoom" you're announcing to the world you don't know the first thing about photography.

Second, read my prior responses. Such as my answer as to why DSLRs don't use multisampling:

S_T_R wrote:

A single large photosite will collect as much if not more light than multisampled smaller sites, and does so with less complex wiring and less computational resources. Basically, it works better and is cheaper.

Third, read my explanation of why this will still take lousy photos:

S_T_R wrote:

We've reached the point where more pixels make for more problems than benefits. What's needed is physically larger sensors with physically larger pixels, all of which collect more light and make for better photos. Right now, there's a LOT of software trickery being used to squeeze usable images from ever smaller photo sites. If one were to apply the processing power and software used by Apple or Samsung on their phones to a much larger 1/2.3" sensor (as used by basic point and shoot cameras), we could get some REAL progress. At least, so long as they don't use the extra real estate to shove the pixel count above the current 8-13 million.

A single large photosite will collect as much if not more light than multisampled smaller sites, and does so with less complex wiring and less computational resources. Basically, it works better and is cheaper.

I'm not quite sure that's completely true--there's a good argument to be made that multi-sampling will reduce the noise floor since even though the SNR of the smaller sites is much worse than a bigger site, the noise between them is largely uncorrelated and will average out effectively.

A single larger pixel reduces its SNR by having more photon-capture events. A pixel, basically, multisamples itself. If you're getting a better result from sampling smaller photosites, it's because they have a larger collective surface area and are collecting more photons in total.

That is absolutely not true. I suggest you go beyond your favourite digital photography blogs and read a good optics textbook. Physical aperture (f-number) is only a single aspect out of many that determine optical resolution.

I wouldn't necessarily get my hopes up on a 41 MP camera. Nokia has reiterated many times that PureView isn't just about one technology. This may be an oversampling system of some sort, I would like it to be 41 MP, but I also want a normal phone form factor.

The optics necessary for the 41 MP 808-style pureview can be slimmed down a bit they said, but it's litterally physics they are dealing with, it can only get so thin.

I hope they figure it out, but I suspect it will be an over sample camera of some sort but less than 41 MP. I hope it retains the OIS as well, and basically all mobile cameras will/should from now on.

There are inexpensive compact cameras that offer more photographer-friendly features than the 808, but as a cameraphone, the Nokia blows its competition out of the water, and significantly narrows the gap between dedicated cameras and portable communications devices to the point where ultimate convergence seems all but inevitable (and probably sooner than some commentators had realised).

Nokia didn't release the 808 PureView in the hope of making much of a dent in the smartphone market - the Symbian operating system is obsolete, and Nokia's future plans are focussed on Microsoft's Windows Phone OS. If you want an 808 in the USA, you'll have to pay full price ($699) since no carrier (to date) is subsidizing the hardware through contracts on this side of the Atlantic. But while the Nokia 808 might not be an iPhone or Samsung Galaxy killer, it is a fascinating and compelling product, and one that has added a definite shine to Nokia's reputation in the tech industry, which was looking a little tarnished, to say the least.

The 808 proves that Nokia can innovate, and its PureView technology has piqued the interest of serious photographers, being one of the most important innovations - arguable the most important - in mobile photography since the smarphone era dawned five or so years ago. As such, the 808 is intriguing not just in itself, but because of what it represents. Things could be about to get interesting...

That is absolutely not true. I suggest you go beyond your favourite digital photography blogs and read a good optics textbook. Physical aperture (f-number) is only a single aspect out of many that determine optical resolution.

Am I simplifying? Yes. Does that simplification change my argument? Not at all. Issues of micro-contrast (etc.) are far less important than the abysmal levels of dynamic range and light sensitivity from the setups in question. I'm fighting the important fires first here. We can deal with whether or not the Galaxy S592 and iPhone 328S have a good cinematic glow when that becomes the paramount issue.